Atheists In Kenya (AIK)

Bringing together non-believers

A Christian Defends Creation – Absurd!

I questioned creation in one of my posts, and this is what one of the Christians had to say.

It’s quite fascinating seeing the atheist look so deep into science to prove that God does not exist. He unfortunately does a very shoddy job on two levels. One is that he does not take the time to understand the story of creation and its purpose. The second is that he does not look to history to see what the early Christians believed with regards to the story of creation. We also know that the genealogy of Jesus doesn’t necessarily depict all descendants of Jesus but shows the bloodline.
Well, as Catholics at least, since the time of the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, it is perfectly ok to believe in the scientific account of creation. Its also ok to believe in evolution, something verified in Humani Generis. In this encyclical, the biblical author is not giving a scientific account. This is important. The author is doing theology in the categories of his time. This isn’t hypothetical, deductive reasoning about empirical measured observations. They aren’t highly mathematical constructions of theories to explain empirical observations. They are not about natural science at all. God took the author and used him in his very context. So what exactly is the author talking about if its not about science? Good question (Yes. I like having internal dialogues just to confuse my enemies.) The Gilgemesh epic & other epics roving around at the time talks of having many gods. The author straightens them out talking of one God. He talks of other things are creatures & objects. He talks of how kind God is in contrast to the other gods. And if we investigate the theological aspect of creation in the bible with the scientific aspect we see a confluence depicting the love God has for us.

The atheist takes a bible, reads it for himself without even asking for assistance in debunking some of the complex bits of the bible or even looking at history to see what it has to offer in response. Its no wonder that he takes everything literally. I wonder how he faired in literature at the least. The atheist takes it that all through history Christians were forced to believe in the story of creation. If only the atheist had done his research properly. Last week when he was talking about Celsus he may have forgotten that there was a response to Celsus’ false claims by Origen, that is, Contra Celsus. In that same document Origen shows that we don’t necessarily take the creation narration literally. And we can show even earlier church father’s writings depicting the same. How interesting it is that only the atheist’s understanding of the bible leads him to believe what he wants to believe.

Lastly, the atheist would have us pitch science & religion on opposite sides. It would be wise for the atheist to look at the majority of Nobel prize winners who are firm believing Christians. Christians who even in their faith championed scientific breakthroughs. He also turns a blind eye unto the organizations championing such scientists. It would be a surprise to the atheist of how many are indeed Christian organizations. Science and religion (the right religion) will never be against one another because they came from one who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Let us follow the evidence and we’ll eventually see that creation demands a creator.


Charles Gathu


Any help we can give here?


7 comments on “A Christian Defends Creation – Absurd!

  1. Noel
    July 2, 2012

    To be fair to the author of this article, i think he needs to identify specific issues he wants addressed in order instead of throwing everything here and there. However, i will attempt to respond to a few that space and time will allow.
    It’s quite fascinating seeing the atheist look so deep into science to prove that God does not exist. He unfortunately does a very shoddy job on two levels. One is that he does not take the time to understand the story of creation and its purpose. The second is that he does not look to history to see what the early Christians believed with regards to the story of creation. We also know that the genealogy of Jesus doesn’t necessarily depict all descendants of Jesus but shows the bloodline.
    the above paragraph which is the opening paragraph shows the other doesn’t know that the atheist has looked at his claim of creation and at history as depicted in the theist holy writ and found it wanting in every aspect. both as a representation of historical events and as an inspired book.
    on his second account of the catholic church, it appears to me the author is ignorant of the fact that the church tried galileo galilee during the spanish inquisition for stating that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe among other things. so to use a papal decree as evidence is both naive and unintelligent. but he will be excused. he mentions the love of god for creation. it appears to me this author has not read even the first few chapters of the holy writ where chapter after chapter his god is responsible for killing entire generations for i don’t what.
    how else does the author intend the holy writ taken? metaphorically? must one have gone through a literature class to understand what this god inspired book has to say? i doubt not. when he talks of the atheist not having done his research properly, who is he referring to? does he have a particular candidate or is he saying the atheist to refer to atheists as a general? if the latter is true then he has not met a good number of atheists or he wouldn’t make such a sweeping declaration.
    in his closing statement i find it both amusing and naive. to say that nobel prize winners have been christians is to me a joke. in what field were they involved in? the question of existence of god is not a scientific question but a question of mythology in general and early man in specific.
    what evidence are you referring to?


    • Charles Gathu
      July 4, 2012

      Hello Noel,
      I am keenly interested to know what exactly from the story of creation you have an issue with as not being credible. I distinctively said history, to encompass all history and that’s why I stated The Gilgemesh Epic, a non-Christian historical account of the times when the creation story was being written.

      This is why I think you first of all take you facts about Christianity from non-reliable sources. The Spanish Inquisition took place somewhere between 1480 & 1530. Galileo’s trial was somewhere in or after 1623. The two were not related in any respect to begin with. If you would like to talk about papal infallibility, The Galileo Controversy, God’s love in light of the killings stated or The Spanish Inquisition I am willing to do that but that is not what we’re talking about here. I do find it rather odd that you would use The Galileo Controversy to bring out concerns for papal infallibility given that there was no papal decree concerning this. As it stands those two papal writings offer as a guide how we take biblical writings with respect to scientific developments.

      That you have read the story of creation and have an issue with it both as a historically accurate and inspired book and still ask whether we are to take the writings either literally or metaphorically makes me wonder what exactly you understand as historically accurate and inspired book. This is why I would like us to dialog on this because by now you would be very familiar with phenomenological language as presented in the story of creation.

      The Atheist – that’s the title that Harry Mumia uses in the Progressive Kenyans forum. That’s how I refer to him. He seeks to show a split between religion and science which is non existent. That the majority of Nobel Prize winners are Christians is a verifiable fact Noel and they have been in all scientific disciplines. These are people who recognize both science and religion as not being against one another but complementing one another.

      The evidence of a creator are all around us. In a recent conversation with Harry I stated one of twenty proofs for God’s existence. That’s something that we can pick up on a different thread but on this one we are strictly on the story of creation.
      Let us follow the evidence and eventually we will see that creation demands a creator.


      Charles Gathu


  2. paul Van Beveren
    July 2, 2012

    Science does not proof that God does not exists, logic does. Science is not busy looking for evidence against God that is a misconception about science, science deals with reality not with the supernatural. It is not for atheists to prove God does not exists. like it is not for atheist to prove a pink unicorn does not exist, the claims come from the believer so it is the believer to back up his claim. One does not believe in evolution, evolution is a fact, you do not believe in facts you accept them, One can not and believe in creationism and accept the fact of evolution they are contradicting each other like genesis is contradicting everything we know, we know it is not possible that plants where created before the sun, that does not make sense and is as senseless as the claim that God has love for us, than why while being almighty does he let 5 million young children a year die ? Why has our planet so many natural disasters? And why do animals suffer so much, are they not part of God’s creation ?
    Is the bible not meant for everybody ? How can anyone know what has to be taken literally and what is not? Should the bible not come with a manual ? How comes that amongst Christians there is no consensus at all about the meaning and the interpretation off the bible hence the many denominations, it is safe to say that there are more interpretations of the bible than there are words in the bible , so how on earth can you blame atheist for not understanding the bible as all Christians disagree on it ?
    Majority of scientists are non believers and for those who are believers their believe should not interfere with science if it would they would not be scientists .And last but not least if creation demands a creator than surely a creator also demands a creator Asking for a bigger miracle to explain a lesser one does not make sense at all excepting that we do not know certain things is the bases of science the God did it answer has been proven wrong time after time again .


    • Charles Gathu
      July 4, 2012

      Hello Paul,
      I agree with you, science cannot prove that God does not exist. If anything, creation demands a creator. It only affirms that there is an intelligent being behind it. You will however find that atheists will look to science to disprove intelligent design. Like I have indicated to Noel and in the original post, the narration of creation is not to be taken literally. The bible is not a scientific book but theological and contains phenomenological language. This is how even the church fathers understood these writings, this is how we as believers understand them. If you would like to tackle the problem of pain and suffering I am open to that but not on this thread. This is specifically on the issue of the story of creation. As to how to interpret the bible I will offer this explanation. The bible is open for everyone to read and interpret for themselves, but there are certain limits as to the understanding of what the bible teaches. The definitive here come from such as papal declarations. I offer this example; say someone reads the bible and decides there’s no such thing as the trinity and another one says that he clearly see’s the depiction of the trinity in the bible. Well, both cannot be right. Well, we go to an authority. One which is mandated by the author of the bible to guide the church in matters of faith. That authority is the magisterium. And under the pope they definitively define matters of the trinity.

      The rise of many Christian denominations does arise from the question of authority. When we remove the authority of the magisterium and instill it on each and every bible reader we get the very issue of many denominations.

      I would like to see your evidence and especially of Nobel Prize winners who are non-believers being more than the non believers. If at all you think that the creator demands a creator theory is flawed then I will agree with you. Remember this notion because if and when we come to the theory for God’s existence we will be looking into it.

      Let us follow the evidence and eventually we will see that creation demands a creator.

      Charles Gathu


  3. Pingback: +++ So for how long have we existed dear Christians? 6000 yrs? | African Lists

  4. Noel
    July 9, 2012

    Charles, Galileo was tried by the Roman Inquisition. i erred by mentioning the spanish inquisition.

    I think it would be better for us to have a dialogue on this at the most opportune moment and in the meantime i would like to see the 20 proofs of your god’s existence.


  5. j.w
    November 21, 2012

    “Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.” Sir Arthur Keith (evolutionist)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on July 2, 2012 by in Uncategorized.
K E Garland

Inspirational kwotes, stories and images


Just another site

The Secret Atheist

Exploring my changing beliefs

Atheist Forum

Engaging modern atheism

Atheist Dave

atheism, religion, science, dave

Black Atheists

We are a minority within a minority.

Atheists In Kenya (AIK)

Bringing together non-believers

%d bloggers like this: